I can't really say either way weather or not this is poised at becoming a dominant form of consuming, but I do see a clear and dominating road block... our established form of 'hyper consumption" driven by our currently run away capitalism.

televator wrote:I can't really say either way weather or not this is poised at becoming a dominant form of consuming, but I do see a clear and dominating road block... our established form of 'hyper consumption" driven by our currently run away capitalism.

Rachel talked about that run away capitalism and talked about a solution in the video. It's the topic.

Ilikemustard wrote:**Visceral reaction to a comment that is critical of the current state of capitalism.**

How about you read carefully and tell me where I said capitalism is inherently bad.

lrkun wrote:

televator wrote:I can't really say either way weather or not this is poised at becoming a dominant form of consuming, but I do see a clear and dominating road block... our established form of 'hyper consumption" driven by our currently run away capitalism.

Rachel talked about that run away capitalism and talked about a solution in the video. It's the topic.

televator wrote:How about you read carefully and tell me where I said capitalism is inherently bad.

Ok, here.

our established form of 'hyper consumption" driven by our currently run away capitalism

What you're saying implies that capitalism has gotten out of control due to lack of regulation or some such.Regulating capitalism is kind of paradoxical, as it contradicts what capitalism actually promotes: A free market without controls. When you impose controls on a free market it transforms into some form of corporatism, such as what you have in the USA at the moment. So you're saying capitalism cannot work without more regulation, thus you're also saying that the core principles of capitalism are inherently bad.

Isn't he trying to say that barter is limited because of our current system? Where what the video suggests is that it will work as an alternative and maybe reputation is a good way to ensure that you'll get your goods?

Ilikemustard wrote:What you're saying implies that capitalism has gotten out of control due to lack of regulation or some such.Regulating capitalism is kind of paradoxical, as it contradicts what capitalism actually promotes: A free market without controls.

You're conflating a type of capitalism, free-market capitalism, with capitalism in general. Free markets may be your preferred form of capitalism but it is not the only type around.

televator wrote:How about you read carefully and tell me where I said capitalism is inherently bad.

Ok, here.

our established form of 'hyper consumption" driven by our currently run away capitalism

What you're saying implies that capitalism has gotten out of control due to lack of regulation or some such.Regulating capitalism is kind of paradoxical, as it contradicts what capitalism actually promotes: A free market without controls. When you impose controls on a free market it transforms into some form of corporatism, such as what you have in the USA at the moment. So you're saying capitalism cannot work without more regulation, thus you're also saying that the core principles of capitalism are inherently bad.

I concur with Aught3's response to this. Plus, "corporatism" is inevitable by an uncontrolled system. Unguided Capitalism has everything to gain from promoting certain events to conclude in their favor -- whether that be political movements or the outcome of warfare. Corporatism exists in some form or another in many places besides the US. It isn't the regulation that begot corporatism in the US. It was the circumvention of regulations by the corporations. Just because other countries may lack the regulations all together, doesn't mean corporations somehow lack pull within their governments.

In fact, that's a pretty backwards way to think about it..... Regulations were in place before corporations started misbehaving?

lrkun wrote:Isn't he trying to say that barter is limited because of our current system? Where what the video suggests is that it will work as an alternative and maybe reputation is a good way to ensure that you'll get your goods?

That is, within the confines of the topic, what I was saying......until likemustard escalated the argument.

Ilikemustard wrote:Oh, so in an uncontrolled system corporations can lobby the state for controls to destroy competition? And this makes sense to you?

You're naive to think "lobbying" is the only means a corporation has to sway governments. Whether there's a proper channel or not is irrelevant. At some point it is lucrative for business to mingle with government.

Ilikemustard wrote:Once again this makes zero sense.

Do you need a dictionary?

Ilikemustard wrote:Regulations are what allow corporations to have "pull" in the first place. If a state declares it will not intervene in the market, how can corporations manipulate it in their favour?

The "market" will come to them. All the while, they have all the freedom to cut every corner in pursuit of profit.

Ilikemustard wrote:The US market was far more free during the 19th and early 20th century than it is now... Graph of Federal Register Pages:

......and none of that freedom made them anymore beneficial or productive toward human health standards, living wages, and ethical treatment of laborers. Regulation started for a reason.

televator wrote:You're naive to think "lobbying" is the only means a corporation has to sway governments. Whether there's a proper channel or not is irrelevant. At some point it is lucrative for business to mingle with government.

Oh, so how does a corporation manipulate the state in their favour without state intervention in the market? Please explain.

televator wrote:Do you need a dictionary?

No, why?

televator wrote:The "market" will come to them. All the while, they have all the freedom to cut every corner in pursuit of profit.

You're not explaining anything. The market will come to them... How? Cut what corners in pursuit of profit?

televator wrote:......and none of that freedom made them anymore beneficial or productive toward human health standards, living wages, and ethical treatment of laborers. Regulation started for a reason.

If you'll excuse me, but free trade is what made the west the economic superpower it is today. It brought about the industrial boom, increasing the wealth of its citizens well above anything they had ever experienced before, thereby increasing their standard of living well above anything they had ever experienced before.

Exactly what is your source for free trade not being beneficial toward health standards and wages? Why don't you take a look at history, and go back just a few centuries before free trade was openly practiced, when peasant farmers were living in poverty under feudalism.

Ilikemustard wrote:Oh, so how does a corporation manipulate the state in their favour without state intervention in the market? Please explain.

Ilikemustard wrote:You're not explaining anything. The market will come to them... How? Cut what corners in pursuit of profit?

I've merely been using the same vague/broad terminology that you've been invoking. It's only you who's been pretending not to understand it for the sake of your position.

At any rate, I'll oblige you. The corporations will intervene in state affairs in pursuit of resources that they would like the liberty of helping themselves to at low cost.

Now before you claim ignorance and pretend your sacred cow of private enterprise can do no harm... here's your example: The privatization of water in Latin America. Multinational agricultural businesses have a high demand for water. Along with global banks, they've been attempting to usurp local governments and push policies that give them ownership of fresh water resources. By redirecting priority over water to themselves, it goes without saying that it leaves a lot of people without water. What corners do businesses cut? Really? You have to ask? I honestly do think you feign ignorance"¦ but okay. I'll oblige again. The meat packing industry's unconcern for healthy meat packing practices before Theodore Roosevelt. It costs money to recall contaminated meat and contaminated meat doesn't always have to kill people but it definitely isn't good for people in the long run. A more modern example is again BP and other companies involved. Who cut corners by not bothering to follow protocols and maintain the equipment on the Gulf rig. Then there was the recent coal mine fires that killed many US miners. The owner of the mines was actually under many violations of safety standards at the time and look where the lack of enforcement of regulations led to there"¦

Ilikemustard wrote:If you'll excuse me, but free trade is what made the west the economic superpower it is today. It brought about the industrial boom, increasing the wealth of its citizens well above anything they had ever experienced before, thereby increasing their standard of living well above anything they had ever experienced before.

Exactly what is your source for free trade not being beneficial toward health standards and wages? Why don't you take a look at history, and go back just a few centuries before free trade was openly practiced, when peasant farmers were living in poverty under feudalism.

Again, you are greatly conflating things. You assume as though markets have always been "free" and that "free" market is the only way to attain a high standard of living for the West. Let alone, you've also offered no tangible proof of that assertion. All the aforementioned examples add up to how your free market doesn't always translate into a system that makes a society and/or people's lives better. I say capitalism CAN be better. We just need to make it truly serve those ends.

Now"¦to oblige lrkun's original topic..

lrkun wrote:I'm all for your discussion, but please include the idea from the video. I mean that's why I shared it with you guys because I find it neat. :p

This system of bartering seems to depend heavily on a social structure. It uses resources that are relatively more readily available depending on your circumstances. In a way, private enterprise is already figuring how it can step in or put a stop to it completely. They've made it harder or impossible to resell software for example. Also, once they see people start to share or "collaboratively consume" certain products and see it affect their bottom line"¦.they really won't like that and might take measures such as creating products that have a shorter span of effective use in order to keep sales up.

Ilikemustard wrote:If you'll excuse me, but free trade is what made the west the economic superpower it is today. It brought about the industrial boom, increasing the wealth of its citizens well above anything they had ever experienced before, thereby increasing their standard of living well above anything they had ever experienced before.

Well the US, for example, has traditionally run a protectionist economy. By keeping their industries isolated from outside competition they were able to become an economic superpower. Only after the US became a dominant market force did the rhetoric about how great free trade was start. It does make me suspicious that free trade with the US would only be good for the US, not for anybody else.

televator wrote:The privatization of water in Latin America. Multinational agricultural businesses have a high demand for water. Along with global banks, they've been attempting to usurp local governments and push policies that give them ownership of fresh water resources.By redirecting priority over water to themselves, it goes without saying that it leaves a lot of people without water.

So your entire argument here rests on the assumption that citizations in Latin America have less access to water? So your entire argument will crumble if I prove otherwise?Forgive my quote mining, these are all from various wikipedia pages (google the quote if you want the source):"According to the regulatory agency SISS, the Chilean urban areas access to water supply stood at 99.8% and access to sanitation at 95.2% in 2006, which is one of the highest levels in Latin America." (Chile carried out absolute privatization)(Argentina) "A 2002 study assessed the impact of privatization on child mortality based on household survey data, finding that in the 1991-1997 period child mortality fell 5 to 7 percent more in areas that privatized compared to those that remained under public or cooperative management. It also found that the effect was largest in poorest areas""Studies on the impact of private sector participation in Colombia show that it had a positive impact on service quality."

Even though your argument is now nullified, let's continue. You seem to think that private water firms are going to hoard water for themselves, or some such. How does one make a profit by doing that? Here is why privatization is a good thing.

First, it allows water to be allocated according to supply and demand. I don't really want to explain basic economics, but I guess I have to. If you allow a monopolistic agency to dictate how a resource is distributed, it leads to misallocation of resources. They have to guess how much the economy wants, which can either lead to too much or too little being produced. Private firms enter a market when there is a profit to be made - If there is too little supply there will be high demand, and therefore higher prices, giving firms incentive to produce more. If there is too much supply there will be low demand, therefore prices will be lower, and firms will have incentive to stop producing as much otherwise their resources will not sell and will go to waste without the firm making a profit. This is why socialist regimes are inefficient - they either create a lot of resources that nobody wants, or a bunch of people are left in desire of resources they can't get. This is because their revenue is generated through taxes, so it doesn't matter whether their system is profitable, they always come out ahead, so they're able to be inefficient and get away with it.

This is not only bad for the economy, but when you apply it to something as important as water, bad things happen. If you don't produce enough, people die of thirst. If you produce too much, a lot of water is wasted, and I'm sure the leftists on this board would be adamantly opposed to wasting water. Here's one example of why socialised water leads to wasteage - If you're not paying in full for the water you use, then you have no incentive to ration it. You can take long showers, accidentally leave the tap on, wash your car twice a week, and it will result in almost no repercussions for you. This is why the state has to spend money on campaigns to combat water wasteage, and it would all be solved if you just privatized water. If you are paying in full for your water, then you're not going to use more than you need.

Are you against the drug war? If so, why? Is it because you don't like the state telling people what they can do with their own body? Do you dislike it when the state tries to protect people from themselves?

That's exactly what this is. People are too stupid to not put things in their body that haven't been inspected by a third party. This may sound harsh to you, but I don't want to pay taxes in order to prevent stupid people from harming themselves. If someone started playing with a snake, was bitten and then died, would you think they deserved it, or would you call for a state regulation on playing with snakes to protect people from themselves?

Here's how it would work in an intelligent society: The meat sellers would pay a private firm to inspect their product, and then if it passes their inspection it would be stamped with the third party firm's seal, or watermark. This would let consumers know that the product is safe for consumption. If people choose to buy products that don't have a watermark from an inspection firm, it is their fault if they contract some horrible disease. I know what you're thinking, what's stopping the meat sellers from paying off the inspection firm to put their watermark on their meat without inspection?a) That conclusion assumes it would be more profitable to pay off the inspection firm and sell bad meat than sell good meatb) The inspection company has a reputation to uphold. If it is found that they passed a product without inspection, or that a faulty product got past their inspection, people will not trust them anymore, and so companies will no longer go to that firm for inspection, as people are not going to buy a product that has the seal of an untrusted inspection firm.

Even with this, it's still possible to sue a company if their product injures you somehow, so that is also giving them incentive to not sell you a faulty product.

Your last two examples occurred even with state regulation in place, so that's not much of an argument. State regulation was in place - Yet they still screwed up. Nice.

Bottom line: Companies have incentive to regulate themselves, why do you need a state to do it?

televator wrote:You assume as though markets have always been "free"

Actually I said the exact opposite. Markets became more free and as a result the west experienced an economic boom.

televator wrote:"free" market is the only way to attain a high standard of living for the West

Yeah, pretty much. Would you like to go join Mao and his communist buddies, and experience a famine that killed around 40,000,000 people?